• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

His pension is $76,111 - a month

boomerang

Lifer
I'm flabbergasted to read this. How can people institute compensation packages like this and either not understand the consequences or just ignore the consequences?

http://www.miamiherald.com/article208949509.html

Oregon — like many other states and cities, including New Jersey, Kentucky and Connecticut — is caught in a fiscal squeeze of its own making. Its economy is growing, but the cost of its state-run pension system is growing faster. More government workers are retiring, including more than 2,000 who, like Robertson, get pensions exceeding $100,000 a year.

The state is not the most profligate pension payer in America, but its spiraling costs are notable in part because Oregon enjoys a reputation for fiscal discipline. Its experience shows how faulty financial decisions by states can eventually swamp local communities.

Oregon’s costs are inflated by the way in which it calculates pension benefits for public employees. Some of the pensions include income that employees earned on the side. Other retirees benefit from long-ago stock market rallies that inflated the value of their payouts.

For example, the pension for Mike Bellotti, the University of Oregon’s head football coach from 1995-2008, includes not just his salary but also money from licensing deals and endorsements that the Ducks’ athletic program generated. Bellotti’s pension is more than $46,000 a month.

The bill is borne by taxpayers. Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System has told cities, counties, school districts and other local entities to contribute more to keep the system afloat. They can neither negotiate nor raise local taxes fast enough to keep up. As a result, pensions are crowding out other spending. Essential services are slashed.

“You get to the point where you can no longer do more with less — you just have to do less with less,” said Nathan Cherpeski, the manager of Klamath Falls, a city of about 21,000 in south-central Oregon.
 
Because they are being voted in by the people they are negotiating with and the ramifications are decades off? This is not the first nor the last time public money was not protected by the collusion of elected officials and the voters who want more money.
 
But in the 1970s, lawmakers started nudging the rate up, eventually to 8 percent. Then, the system’s trustees decided 8 percent should be a guaranteed minimum.

(snip)

For workers with the tracking accounts, PERS dialed back the annual returns to 8 percent, then to 7.5 percent in 2016.

Sigh...
 
It seems unlikely those super highly paid employees (football coaches, University presidents) are unprepared for their retirement through other means. Nonetheless, 401k and such were instituted as pension plans started disappearing as a means of retirement savings. If the pension plan is offered in lieu of income and offers a return that is based on a reasonable market return, I have no problem with a high-paid employee getting a high pension payment. The issue is if the pension was poorly administered and providing returns which were not reasonable.
 
My girlfriend works for the state of Oregon, and definitely won't get anything like this. The really high PERS pensions have stopped if you were hired after the early nineties I believe (maybe even earlier).

The state tried to retroactively scale back all the early PERS pensions several years ago but was shot down by the Supreme Court.

Bellotti should get his based on his base salary. Why are my taxes paying for all the extra cash he made for the UO athletic department? I never saw any of that.
 
Because they are being voted in by the people they are negotiating with and the ramifications are decades off? This is not the first nor the last time public money was not protected by the collusion of elected officials and the voters who want more money.

There is a damn sad joke in this statement someplace. Something about elected officials, donors, and tax cuts targeted at the wealthy donors.
 
My girlfriend works for the state of Oregon, and definitely won't get anything like this. The really high PERS pensions have stopped if you were hired after the early nineties I believe (maybe even earlier).

The state tried to retroactively scale back all the early PERS pensions several years ago but was shot down by the Supreme Court.

Bellotti should get his based on his base salary. Why are my taxes paying for all the extra cash he made for the UO athletic department? I never saw any of that.

Yes, public pensions in general have become substantially less generous over the last 20 years or so. Overall I think this is a good thing for two reasons:

1) the purpose of retirement benefits from an employer standpoint is to make a job more attractive so you can recruit/keep the best employees. Research indicates though that public sector employees often do not value these retirement benefits at the cost it requires to give them. ie: you could cut retirement and simply pay them more and get better results.

2) while I'm a union supporter, one of the primary issues I've seen with CBAs is that the individuals who wield power within the unions are often lifers. (this isn't that surprising I guess) One side effect of this though is that the union's negotiating position is often weighted heavily towards lifers and much less towards new/mid career employees. From a city management perspective that's bad. I'm not necessarily arguing for a reduction in total money spent on employees but I think it is poorly concentrated in retirement benefits (or at least was).
 
My state (CT) also is extremely generous with older employees' pensions as well. For newer employees they have basically gone to a 401k type program, little different from the private sector. But for those grandfathered in long enough, they get such goodies as overtime counting towards pension. this gets totally abused, especially by upper level police, prison system employees, and the like who rack up the overtime just before they retire (at twenty years employment) thus grossly inflating their pensions. As the persons who would ride herd on this also benefit from the same system, the abuse is rampant.

A big chunk of them that I personally know are rabidly anti-socialist trumpsters as well.
 
My state (CT) also is extremely generous with older employees' pensions as well. For newer employees they have basically gone to a 401k type program, little different from the private sector. But for those grandfathered in long enough, they get such goodies as overtime counting towards pension. this gets totally abused, especially by upper level police, prison system employees, and the like who rack up the overtime just before they retire (at twenty years employment) thus grossly inflating their pensions. As the persons who would ride herd on this also benefit from the same system, the abuse is rampant.

A big chunk of them that I personally know are rabidly anti-socialist trumpsters as well.
With absolutely no self awareness either.
 
At this level salaries and benefits are negotiated using free market metrics for compensation and benefits.

Does that make sense to you? The people being forced to pay have no ability to negotiate. It is by definition not what you said it was. You have parties that are negotiating with other people's money, which is the antithesis of Laissez-faire.

" is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges, tariffs and subsidies."

Do you now see the problem?
 
Though part of what happens, in general, if not necessarily in this particular case, is that an unregulated free market produces huge disparities of wealth and income. And the higher-ranked state actors within such a context start to consider that they should be on a par with the winners in the private sector - whose pay and benefits can be stratospheric (and not always very well correlated with actual results achieved *cough* bankers *cough*). Your state elites then start to expect similar remuneration and benefits as the private-sector members of the same social strata (the people they went to the same good schools with, after all).

I don't think that's the entirety of the story, of course - the 'negotiating with other people's money' is also part of it. But the inequality produced by the workings of the 'market' helps set the expectations of elites of all kinds. If you are working with those private-sector folk, even supposed to be regulating or negotiating with them, you are likely to start thinking you ought to be earning as much as them.

The worst seems to happen when you have a mixture of both free-market and state. When in the name of 'efficiency' the state starts creating a semi-independent managerial class, who get to spend state-money but without any democratic accountability. On the basis that 'the state' is too bureaucratic to show initiative or be creative, and you need to 'set the managers free'. While the first generation of such managers might have genuine good intentions and new ideas, before long the next lot will find a way to funnel much of that state money into their own pockets and you end up with oligarchs.
 
Yes, public pensions in general have become substantially less generous over the last 20 years or so. Overall I think this is a good thing for two reasons:

1) the purpose of retirement benefits from an employer standpoint is to make a job more attractive so you can recruit/keep the best employees. Research indicates though that public sector employees often do not value these retirement benefits at the cost it requires to give them. ie: you could cut retirement and simply pay them more and get better results.

2) while I'm a union supporter, one of the primary issues I've seen with CBAs is that the individuals who wield power within the unions are often lifers. (this isn't that surprising I guess) One side effect of this though is that the union's negotiating position is often weighted heavily towards lifers and much less towards new/mid career employees. From a city management perspective that's bad. I'm not necessarily arguing for a reduction in total money spent on employees but I think it is poorly concentrated in retirement benefits (or at least was).

As a former business agent for a union with national affiliation, I agree with you on everything you mentioned.
 
Like many words it has mor
Does that make sense to you? The people being forced to pay have no ability to negotiate. It is by definition not what you said it was. You have parties that are negotiating with other people's money, which is the antithesis of Laissez-faire.

" is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges, tariffs and subsidies."

Do you now see the problem?
Two things: look up the entire definition of laissez-faire and then look up market competitive compensation as elements of both are present.
 
Two things: look up the entire definition of laissez-faire and then look up market competitive compensation as elements of both are present.

Irrelevant that the other part fits because the first part is mutually exclusive.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire

: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.

The government is inherently involved thus is mutually exclusive to the first.

: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action.

The people paying money are not involved in free exchange as they were not part of the negotiations. So again mutually exclusive.
 
Though part of what happens, in general, if not necessarily in this particular case, is that an unregulated free market produces huge disparities of wealth and income. And the higher-ranked state actors within such a context start to consider that they should be on a par with the winners in the private sector - whose pay and benefits can be stratospheric (and not always very well correlated with actual results achieved *cough* bankers *cough*). Your state elites then start to expect similar remuneration and benefits as the private-sector members of the same social strata (the people they went to the same good schools with, after all).

I don't think that's the entirety of the story, of course - the 'negotiating with other people's money' is also part of it. But the inequality produced by the workings of the 'market' helps set the expectations of elites of all kinds. If you are working with those private-sector folk, even supposed to be regulating or negotiating with them, you are likely to start thinking you ought to be earning as much as them.

The worst seems to happen when you have a mixture of both free-market and state. When in the name of 'efficiency' the state starts creating a semi-independent managerial class, who get to spend state-money but without any democratic accountability. On the basis that 'the state' is too bureaucratic to show initiative or be creative, and you need to 'set the managers free'. While the first generation of such managers might have genuine good intentions and new ideas, before long the next lot will find a way to funnel much of that state money into their own pockets and you end up with oligarchs.

That sure seems like a Libertarian view of things 🙂
 
"A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean."

This is the start of our downfall, as it was for the Romans many years before. Politicians and other government workers who do nothing but take advantage of the system. To pay these pensions your taxes will go thru the roof. Companies who would normally do business in your state move out. It stifles competition and creativity. Government workers and officials start expecting handouts. But, it all comes at a cost. Ignorance. Laziness. Hard work is an after thought.
 
I'm flabbergasted to read this. How can people institute compensation packages like this and either not understand the consequences or just ignore the consequences?

http://www.miamiherald.com/article208949509.html

Maybe rather than being pissed off about someone's $76k/month pension, states should stop hiring athletic coaches for seven figures thus necessitating said 76k pensions later on? Otherwise it’s like buying a luxury car then bitching about how high the monthly loan payments are.
 
That sure seems like a Libertarian view of things 🙂

It's more of a pessimistic view. Capitalism and the state increasingly don't play well together, each corrupts the other, yet pure-capitalism or pure-socialism have never worked anywhere. Capitalism and the state are co-dependent, bad for each other but unable to live without each other.
 
It's more of a pessimistic view. Capitalism and the state increasingly don't play well together, each corrupts the other, yet pure-capitalism or pure-socialism have never worked anywhere. Capitalism and the state are co-dependent, bad for each other but unable to live without each other.

Interesting. How does capitalism corrupt the state?
 
Back
Top